Carelessness: A Million-Dollar Fire Hazard

IT is easy to understand why in less enlightened ages fire was regarded universally with superstitious reverence or with superstitious fear. Its visitations were often so sudden and unexpected, it came to such unthought of places and in such strange ways, that it had the appearance of a spirit, often beneficent but more often malicious, wholly beyond human control.

Its attributes are to-day what they always were, but the scientific mind of to-day insists on giving a very different interpretation to its manifestations. As regards the public’s attitude toward the matter of fire’s detructiveness, the theory of spontaneous combustion was superstition’s last refuge. Even now this theory is strongly intrenched in popular conception, leading to a general conviction that many fires originate of themselves and could not have been prevented by foresight. This theory is absolutely false and must be swept away. Of course, there is such a thing as spontaneous combustion, but it is easily within human power to make impossible the conditions in which fires from this cause can take place.

However much the public at large may lag behind, it is to the credit of America that she has taken the lead in the matter of investigating fire origins, of tabulating results of investigation, and of arriving at definite conclusions. It was in 1835 that Zacharia Allen, a New England cotton-mill owner, made the fire prevention movement a reality instead of a mere hope. Inaugurating what was known as “mill construction,” designed primarily for cotton-mills, he pointed the way for factories and other buildings to be so planned that they would at least retard the progress of fire, if not avert its inception.

The decade following his practical experiments gave birth to a great deal of literature on the subject, though this literature is now outdated by the vastly more important and more useful treatises that have been prepared by various agencies working to a common end. Several of these agencies have been mentioned previously, notably the National Fire Prevention Association and the National Board of Underwriters. During the war the Government, owing to its large interests vested temporarily in munitions and food-producing plants, also took a leading part in the investigation of fire losses and means of fire prevention.

Fire prevention, as well as fire-fighting, has been put on a scientific basis at last. In addition to the municipal fire departments throughout the country—there are now upward of nine thousand of these, the most scientifically equipped of any in the world and requiring for maintenance not less than $300,000,000 yearly—nearly all of the states have Fire Marshals with varying powers, and Chambers of Commerce, public schools, and other public and private organizations are swinging into line with the view to closer coöperation. Not least important is the banding together in separate influential associations of manufacturers of building materials, fire safeguards, first-aid appliances, and fire-fighting apparatus.

It may be somewhat superfluous to speak of the human element in fire causation, as scarcely any other element can be conceived of. An expert who has given a great part of his life to the study of the subject says that all fires, wherever occurring and however mysterious in origin, are caused by human carelessness, ignorance, or criminality, except the inconsiderable number caused by lightning. Another expert concedes that tornadoes are also an occasional cause. Apart from these two causes, which together account for not over one per cent of all the fires that occur, none other are possible.

These assertions are certainly sweeping, but they are justified by both observation and analysis. The reluctance to admit their disagreeable truth arises from the fact that fire usually destroys everything pertaining to itself, including evidences as to its origin, and it is only by a process of mentally reconstructing former conditions that the cause can be ascertained.

Of the three human failings that are the causes of nearly all fires — carelessness, ignorance, and criminality — the first-named is easily chief. Taken together, and making every allowance for doubtful cases, ignorance and criminality play a very inconsiderable part in the ever-recurring toll of disaster. Fires due to ignorance are principally those supposed to originate in spontaneous combustion and those caused by the handling of explosive chemicals or the fusion of chemical ingredients. But even in these cases ignorance is abetted by carelessness. For sanitary and other reasons, as well as from precaution against possible fire, things which might give rise to spontaneous combustion — decaying vegetable matter, greasy rags, etc. — should not be allowed to accumulate; and it is certain that ignorance should never be tolerated in the handling of explosive chemicals.

Criminality as a cause of fire plays a still less important part than ignorance. In this respect, by the way, America scores one point over Europe, where arson is a much more common crime than here. As tabulated from the returns of forty American states, there were four hundred and forty-one convictions for incendiarism in 1918 — the merest fraction of the many thousands of fires that occurred, a proportion which would not be greatly increased even if cases of suspected incendiarism were added. It is interesting to note the motives for these incendiarist fires, so far as they could be gathered at the trials that led to conviction. The desire to defraud insurance companies was responsible for 172 fires; pyromania for 156; revenge for 87; and the effort to conceal crime was responsible for 26.

In considering carelessness as an element in fire causation — and it is perfectly safe to estimate that fully 90 per cent of all fires are due to this commonest of human failings — a singular anomaly presents itself. In most of the affairs of life there is a comparatively fixed and known relation between cause and effect. This does not apply at all to fire, as some of the most serious conflagrations have arisen from the most trivial incidents. It was ascertained that in at least one American city twenty per cent of all the fires occurring in the course of a year were caused by lighted matches, cigar and cigarette ends, that had been thoughtlessly thrown aside.

Other causes apparently as little regarded until too late may be included under the common term of “bad housekeeping,舡 to use the nomenclature adopted by underwriters. Thus for a recent year the records of forty-four of the leading American cities show that over 10 per cent of the total number of fires originated in rubbish that had been allowed to accumulate, and over 7 per cent were caused by unprotected matches, principally of the “strike anywhere” kind.

It is rather disturbing to know that habitual carelessness is the cause of losses so serious as our annual fire losses, as of all habits, the habit of mere thoughtlessness is the most difficult to overcome. Yet there is no escape from the conclusion. On the other hand, there is consolation in knowing that merely by increasing care and vigilance, a salutary mental attitude that involves no waste of time or energy and no financial risk, fire losses can be cut down and kept down amazingly.

This fact was demonstrated by the Government clearly during the late war. Noting that while housewives were urged to save crumbs, over two hundred grain elevators were burned in a year, one of the fires alone entailing the loss of enough wheat to provision an army of 200,000 for twelve months, and that while the extreme conservation of sugar was urged a single fire destroyed $1,000,000 worth, the Government instituted rigid precautions for the avoidance of further losses. The precautions were immediately and markedly fruitful, though for the most part they were nothing more than a well-planned educational campaign designed for employers and employees equally.

Similar evidence of how much may be done simply by impressing upon citizens the need for vigilance and thoughtfulness was provided by over three hundred cities, where local departments and various associations followed the Government’s lead and waged intelligent and consistent fire-protection campaigns. In these cities the per-capita loss was at once cut down to a point far below the average for the country at large, to say nothing of the larger future gain, sure to follow from the cultivation of a new spirit.

Americans’ tolerance of their huge fire losses is a striking inconsistency, as in many other ways this country leads the world in saving expenses, not as regards consumption, but as regards production. In the standardization of processes and products, in specialization and the minute subdivision of labor, in office accountancy and the elaboration of systems for checking costs, and in other ways we have shown an unrivalled genius for industrial and commercial management. But we have yet to awake to the necessity for conserving what we win, if we would avoid a heavy handicap in the coming keen race for trade supremacy.

If America could but remove from the debit side of her ledger the sum of $300,000,000 a year that goes up in smoke, and convert the loss to an asset, her premier position would be doubly secure. And to do this is simply a matter of national “good housekeeping,” proper building construction, using fire-retarding materials whenever possible, and providing adequate protection in theform of modern fire-extinguishment apparatus.